Two trends have shaped the European car market over the past decade: electrification and SUVisation. Recently, they have merged in a new product: the …
Some studies have shown work from home may eliminate the commute miles, but those miles are replaced with leisure and errands miles. So ultimately we still need transit to replace a lot of car trips cause be it work, grocceries, or a night out, people need to get places.
We need to pull all strings. I didn’t say people don’t need to get places. I just stated there are many cases where it’s not required. Corona has shown what we could do if we wanted.
In wonder if, in terms of logistics, delivery of groceries and online shopping could be a good thing.
Of course not with instant-services like Flink. Of course not with single-use cardboard boxes and worker exploitation.
More like the good old milkman. People order their groceries, and they are delivered in reusable boxes next day, old boxes picked up. Same with online shopping.
Both is already a thing, but few do it. Maybe it would work much better if a huge percentage of people would do it, e. g. 15 % for grocery delivery. The grocery truck would not have to do more miles than if it would deliver to the current 1 % (guessed), just needs to be bigger and have more stops.
In communities that are not built to live car-less, that might save many individual car trips.
People will come up with any solution so long as it still relies on roads. The parent comment to this thread is all about tire dust and this solution just replaces private tire dust with commercial tire dust. The system you propose would still be more complicated, energy and resource intensive than people just taking transit to the groccery store.
The thing is, we don’t have transit. And I’m pretty sure demolishing our cities and rebuilding them in order to enable transit is even more harmful to the environment.
Only in the short term. In our current timeline we destroy our cities to pave new highways. By rebuilding our cities we can reduce sprawl, increase density and make the whole city more effecient while reducing the new land that gets developed.
Corona isn’t a perfect example as many places had restricted capacity and hours. There was also a significant precentage of the population minimizing their exposure to the outside world. Yes we should encourage work from home but my point is it won’t be reducing car use nearly as much as it seems and even if everyone worked from home we still need alternatives to driving.
Sure we need bike lanes too, but we still need transit as an option for longer distances/faster travel, for when the weather is awful, and for people unable to bike. You could even bring your bike on the transit, maybe visiting another city and bringing your bike with you on that transit.
Some studies have shown work from home may eliminate the commute miles, but those miles are replaced with leisure and errands miles. So ultimately we still need transit to replace a lot of car trips cause be it work, grocceries, or a night out, people need to get places.
We need to pull all strings. I didn’t say people don’t need to get places. I just stated there are many cases where it’s not required. Corona has shown what we could do if we wanted.
In wonder if, in terms of logistics, delivery of groceries and online shopping could be a good thing.
Of course not with instant-services like Flink. Of course not with single-use cardboard boxes and worker exploitation.
More like the good old milkman. People order their groceries, and they are delivered in reusable boxes next day, old boxes picked up. Same with online shopping.
Both is already a thing, but few do it. Maybe it would work much better if a huge percentage of people would do it, e. g. 15 % for grocery delivery. The grocery truck would not have to do more miles than if it would deliver to the current 1 % (guessed), just needs to be bigger and have more stops.
In communities that are not built to live car-less, that might save many individual car trips.
People will come up with any solution so long as it still relies on roads. The parent comment to this thread is all about tire dust and this solution just replaces private tire dust with commercial tire dust. The system you propose would still be more complicated, energy and resource intensive than people just taking transit to the groccery store.
The thing is, we don’t have transit. And I’m pretty sure demolishing our cities and rebuilding them in order to enable transit is even more harmful to the environment.
Only in the short term. In our current timeline we destroy our cities to pave new highways. By rebuilding our cities we can reduce sprawl, increase density and make the whole city more effecient while reducing the new land that gets developed.
How many cities are building new highways, not just slightly expanding existing ones?
At my place there are two supermarkets within 500m, no need for any driving besides one lorry supplying the markets.
Corona isn’t a perfect example as many places had restricted capacity and hours. There was also a significant precentage of the population minimizing their exposure to the outside world. Yes we should encourage work from home but my point is it won’t be reducing car use nearly as much as it seems and even if everyone worked from home we still need alternatives to driving.
It is just one example. I think you and I might misunderstand each other a lot.
If you live in a bicycle friendly place, a lot of car trips can be replaced.
Sure we need bike lanes too, but we still need transit as an option for longer distances/faster travel, for when the weather is awful, and for people unable to bike. You could even bring your bike on the transit, maybe visiting another city and bringing your bike with you on that transit.